- Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Municipal Law
- Date Filed: 05-08-2015
- Case #: No. 2014-101
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
- Full Text Opinion
Kiim Stavrum and Amber Tudor appealed Clackamas County’s approval of an application for a conditional use permit with conditions for a horse boarding facility. Stavrum’s property is a 4.89-acre parcel zoned Rural Residential Farm Forest 5 (RRFF-5). A 16-stall barn on the property was not constructed in accordance with the Structural Specialty Code pursuant to a county-issued exemption for an “agricultural building.” The county instituted enforcement proceedings and Stavrum subsequently applied for a conditional use permit to operate a horse boarding facility and riding arena on the property. The county approved the application, and Stavrum assigned as error three aspects of that approval.The first assignment of error addressed ZDO 309.03(F). LUBA looked to how “stable” was defined by ZDO 309.03(F) and 202, and how that definition was applied by the hearings officer who determined that the horse boarding facility was not a primary use in the RRFF-5 zone under ZDO 309.03(F). Stavrum further challenged the hearings officer’s determination that the horse boarding facility constituted commercial use, maintaining that the facility’s primary use was for “animal husbandry” under ZDO 309.03(B)(7). LUBA concluded that neither ZDO 309.03(B)(2) nor (7) authorize Stavrum’s proposed horse boarding facility as a primary use. Disagreeing with Stavrum’s argument that the proposed facility is a primary use under the more general farm uses described in ZDO 309.03(B)(2) or (7), LUBA denied the first assignment of error. LUBA denied Stavrum’s second assignment of error because the arguments therein were insufficiently developed for LUBA to adequately review. Stavrum’s third assignment of error alleged that the county’s prior enforcement procedures violated Article 1, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. LUBA found that these arguments were without merit, and were unrelated to the approval of a conditional use permit. AFFIRMED.